Table of ContentsSummaryDescription of Forensic EvidenceStrengths and Limitations of Forensic MedicineRecommendationsTools Used in Forensic Medicine and Their EffectivenessConclusionWorks CitedSummaryForensic science, with its new technological advances, has contributed greatly to facilitate the prosecution of suspects and conduct investigations within the judicial systems. However, despite the importance of forensic science in trials, various difficulties have been encountered during its implementation. These challenges highlight the limitations associated with the adoption of forensic science in examinations. Nevertheless, these advances and constraints have led to the continued development of criminal justice platforms. In this article, the primary focus will be on the importance of forensic science, its use by the prosecution and defense, and an exploration of the strengths and weaknesses of forensic technology. Additionally, recommendations will be presented to improve the admission of testimony in court and further improve the field of forensic science. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Description of Forensic Evidence Fire, still an integral part of daily life, can pose great risks in some cases. In legal proceedings, fire can be used as a weapon for criminal purposes, a concept called arson. Globally, different police agencies are responsible for investigating fires. However, some places have a completely different, independent task force responsible for fire investigations. Studies (The Forensics Library, n.d.) indicate that in all 16 major cities in the United States there is a fire department that is mandated to conduct fire and arson investigations, while only four cities have been entrusted to the police and municipal teams. (Lee, 1951). The study further highlighted that there was an almost even split within the sixteen cities as to which had a dedicated team, which did not have a team and which were part of teams with service delivery (Lee, 1951). Unlike many other categories of forensic science, such as the use of DNA and fingerprints, fire analysis adopts the method of trained professionals to verify and interpret the available evidence, which helps them draw conclusions about whether a suspect was involved in arson or not (Dioso-Villa, 2013). The procedure can be difficult, but it is structured to have a series of safeguarding approaches that strengthen the evidence used by investigative agencies to draw conclusions about arson. The main concern of the forensic investigation is always the security of the site. Safety is determined by the structural competence of the building, electrical outlets, gas lines, and any other equipment that could have been damaged by a fire that could have led to toxic mixtures (The Forensics Library, n.d.). Accordingly, security measures should always be put in place before commencing any investigation. When investigators begin doing their forensic audit work, it is always necessary to exercise great caution in what they touch at the crime scene. Photos and samples are always taken from the crime scene to ensure that the evidence collected is a solid construct that cannot be affected by memories or human error. During thephoto-taking process, specific critical steps must be followed to ensure that the survey team leaves no stone unturned. Investigators must systematically move in from the outside when entering the home, while recording everything seen and obtaining their personal conclusions that they can remember and refer to later (The Forensics Library, n.d. ). This will be of great help in the next step of determining the location of the fire's origin. The location of the fire's origin can tell a lot about the type and cause of the fire and the condition the house was in before the fire started. After locating the background, the investigation team begins the process of establishing the potential causes of the fire. The team will ask a series of questions such as whether the fire accelerated, whether there were any faults in the wiring system, whether there was forced entry and whether the site was tampered with in any way. whatever. These questions could be of great help to the investigation team in determining what happened to the location that caused the fire and even provide a lead to the potential arsonist if there was one. After establishing this, the investigating agency and the police department can have enough evidence that they can use against the suspected arsonists in a court of law. Strengths and Limitations of Forensic Science The justice system has various advantages and weaknesses with respect to the type of forensic evidence presented and its use in court. First of all, among the limitations, there is the lack of training. Fire detectives are considered expert eyewitnesses and therefore do not need a level of education beyond high school. Degrees and other scientific training are still not considered necessary in fire investigations (Dioso-Villa, 2013). This means that fire experts have no other way to prove their high-level knowledge than through experience gained through a series of investigations. Other than experience. According to Lee's paper, fire experts can be grouped into several categories based on their qualifications. The first group is made up of graduates with training in chemistry, engineering and law. The second group was formed based on experience and the specific number of years the fire expert worked in the forensic fire department. The last grouping was done based on the need for in-depth knowledge of the rules and regulations of a fire expert and the specific requirements that needed to be met before becoming a fire expert (Lee, 1951). Despite the strict requirements, certain rewards were given to particular individuals for possessing certain qualities. Fire marshals who lack sufficient knowledge of fire forensics may find themselves on the wrong side of the defense team intent on taking advantage of their naivety. This will cause a limitation in the case as some evidence is not presented well because the investigating experts do not have the knowledge to establish the facts correctly, but depend to some extent on their experience. Different courts have different jurisdictions and different decision standards. making state-to-state testimony and submission of evidence difficult (Dioso-Villa, 2013). The experience that a fire expert has previously acquired can be used as an advantage as it will very easily give the investigator time to decide a case based on their experience. However, some cases continue to change and their situationCurrent practice may require experts to be familiar with fire forensic science (Dioso-Villa, 2013). Although an experienced fire expert may outperform a scholar, he or she may pose a problem when presenting testimony in court because he or she will be unaware of the various basic principles of fire forensic science, which may be used against him by the accused. Experienced and untrained people will tend to present testimony in a way that is not interpretable by the defense and prosecution teams because they lack basic knowledge. Fire investigations are opinion-based and whoever is mandated to present the evidence in court should do so more intelligently. that he can convince everyone in this courtroom to believe his opinion regarding the evidence. When an expert has no legal training, he or she may not present evidence in the correct manner, as he or she will present an element of ignorance of key fire legal principles and concepts. This will create a lot of confusion in the courtroom and may lead to obstruction of justice. With the knowledge of fire forensic principles, drawing conclusions from the evidence provided by the experts becomes a very easy task as it will be obvious what causes what with respect to the evidence (Yuen, Yeoh, Alexander and Cook, 2014), most judges will tend to trust evidence supported by appropriate explanations and visual presentation. This is a mainly strong influence of the fire review. Although these graphic representations are misplaced statements taken from the experience of experts. Fire forensic experts must therefore restore jury confidence in the validity of the evidence they present in court by supporting the evidence with scientific explanations (Yuen, Yeoh, Alexander, & Cook, 2014). Fire forensic science has many advantages and limitations, as noted previously. The field continues to grow and continue to evolve with time, and more studies can help expand the knowledge from various experts around the world.RecommendationsDue to the strengths and weaknesses available in fire and arson investigation , there are often several referrals that are pursued on a daily basis to ensure the best services from the department regarding cases brought to court for justice to be served to the victims. In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences released a statement on the general issue, strengths and weaknesses of the application of forensic sciences in the department. Although it is considered a good step towards global unification, there are still various gaps before forensic science is fully integrated into investigations. (National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 2009). Above all, there is a need for unity between all territories and states to increase a high degree of openness within the investigative agency. Unified policies would further enable courts to perform their function more effectively across territories and states in matters that arise along borders. Additionally, there would also be a greater need for concrete approaches to verify and reject certain situations. There seems to be more weight on explanations and a high value on skills as opposed to someone with scientific knowledge. More investigations into fires and arson would mean detectives would come to an agreement to reduce subjectivity in scenarios with higher tolerances for people doinginvestigated in a controlled environment rather than creating rules or disapproving outdated and now unnecessary policies and strategies. . In addition, it is necessary to further improve the training of experts in order to obtain more excellent qualifications. Through incentives, for example, salary increases and certain benefits, experts are motivated to conduct these investigations accurately and with more exceptional determinations. With high training and qualifications, there would be a complete department of fire investigators, in addition to high perception and point of view on the use of forensic science to solve various cases of fire. fire - finally, better support for workloads as a total solution. help with forensic science. Fire and arson services frequently operate within various forces, for example police services and councils, putting too much pressure on different sectors and on government due to the constraints available to ensure that multiple cases are suppressed and evidence presented in court. Additional support and funding from individual departments would provide as much time and resources as needed to be devoted to emerging and developing criminal investigation techniques. These approvals can be put into practice in various countries around the world to improve continuity and smooth operations of the department. Due to the constant evolution of know-how and the emphasis on increasing crime, this is not necessarily the case for accuracy and approval of investigators, so it is essential to s ensure that the strengths and weaknesses of each investigative body are recognized. These limitations may affect departments that investigate fires and arson. Tools Used in Forensic Science and Their Effectiveness The conventional method used in forensic science is DNA matching. DNA fingerprinting involves obtaining biological evidence from the crime scene, analyzing the DNA content, and comparing it to a DNA sample of the suspect. When the DNA from the crime scene matches that of the suspect, then there is a high probability that the evidence came from the suspect (National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 2009). However, if the DNA is different, the suspect could be innocent as law enforcement searches for other evidence to arrest the prime suspect. Biological samples include blood, hair, semen or saliva, as well as the DNA structure taken and compared to that of the suspect. This technique is effective because two individuals cannot have the same DNA unless they are identical twins. In such a case, other approaches such as fingerprinting can help detectives identify the real suspect because, due to their different DNA, identical twins may have comparable fingerprints, but they are not identical. Peterson (2010) states that investigations into criminal cases clarified that as of 2008, genetic fingerprints were more operational than traditional fingerprints. For example, property crime explanation rates doubled with the collection of DNA evidence, and homicide cases with DNA samples were more likely to reach probation than those without samples. Additionally, DNA fingerprinting is very effective in using evidence databases because the evaluation and matching tends to provide a clear result, allowing detectives to quickly uncover other possibilities when the case is, 2014.